User talk:Jimiraywinter

Welcome!

Hello, Jimiraywinter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! dave souza, talk 08:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Charles Darwin
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did this user make an edit to Social Darwinism? Unless under a different name there seems to be no such edit. Richard001 (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, I think this was simply a typo, and the edit was to Charles Darwin rather than the main article. .. dave souza, talk 07:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your edit to Charles Darwin, you didn't comply with verification policy by citing a reliable source for the claim you added. You did show a quotation from Darwin, but that's a primary source needing a secondary source for interpretation and assessment to meet no original research policy. The quotation is actually one commonly misinterpreted, as discussed at the Quote Mine Project. The question as to whether Darwin was racist is covered in outline at Claim CA005.1 and some quotations giving more context are shown at Darwin on race and slavery. Hope you find that useful, . dave souza, talk 08:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This requirement is nothing more than a shamelessly obvious method of in-group administration of total control over the content considered admissible to wikipedia articles. I wasn't born yesterday; it is clear that any source which provides the actual interpretation of Darwin's statement, which is that blacks and other "savage" races would be exterminated for being inferior to Caucasians (an interpretation which none of the sites you provided cares to refute -- again, they only address the vague semantic question of whether Darwin was a "racist"), would be rejected as a "non-reliable source" (nevermind the fact that the sites you linked to are hardly credible institutional sources by any means).  Some quotes, like the one I mentioned, are of intellectual value in and of themselves and require no "secondary source" to be properly interpreted.  Darwin's theory does not lead to racism, one of the main deceitful "claims" the sites you linked to suppose to refute, but Darwin most certainly thought the forces described by his theory would exterminate the blacks & al. because of their inferiority.--Jimiraywinter (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)